An overview of the 2013 files and the working methods of the Consultative Body is included in Document ITH/13/8.COM/7

(1)

ITH/13/8.COM/7.a Add.2 Paris, 3 December 2013 Original: English

CONVENTION FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR THE

SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE

Eighth session Baku, Azerbaijan 2 to 7 December 2013

Item 7.a of the Provisional Agenda:

Examination of nominations for inscription on the

List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding

ADDENDUM

The following nominations have been withdrawn by the submitting States Parties:

Draft Decision Submitting

State Element File No.

8.COM 7.a.4 Côte d’Ivoire Gbofe of Afounkaha, the music of the transverse trumps

of the Tagbana community 00565

8.COM 7.a.10 Nicaragua Traditions and oral expressions of the Rama people 00777

(2)

ITH/13/8.COM/7.a Paris, 21 October 2013 Original: English

CONVENTION FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR THE

SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE

Eighth session Baku, Azerbaijan 2 to 7 December 2013

Item 7.a of the Provisional Agenda:

Examination of nominations for inscription on the

List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding

Summary

At its seventh session, the Committee established a Consultative Body responsible, inter alia, for the evaluation in 2013 of nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List (Decision 7.COM 12.b ). An overview of the 2013 files and the working methods of the Consultative Body is included in Document ITH/13/8.COM/7. The present document includes the recommendations of the Consultative Body (Part A), general observations on the nominations (Part B), and a set of draft decisions for the Committee’s consideration (Part C).

Decisions required: paragraph 34

(3)

A. Recommendations

1. The Consultative Body recommends to the Committee to inscribe the following elements:

State Nomination File No.

8.COM 7.a.1 Azerbaijan Chovqan, a traditional Karabakh horse-riding game 00905

8.COM 7.a.5 Guatemala Paach ceremony 00863

8.COM 7.a.9 Mongolia Mongolian calligraphy 00873

2. The Consultative Body recommends to the Committee not to inscribe the following nominated elements at this time:

State Nomination File No.

8.COM 7.a.2 Botswana Seperu folk dance, associated traditions and practices

of the Basubiya community in Botswana’s Chobe District 00902 8.COM 7.a.3 Botswana Traditional folk music of Bakgatla ba Kgafela 00752 8.COM 7.a.4 Côte d’Ivoire Gbofe of Afounkaha, the music of the transverse trumps

of the Tagbana community 00565

8.COM 7.a.6 Indonesia Tenun Ikat Sumba weaving of Indonesia 00868 8.COM 7.a.7 Kenya Enkipaata, Eunoto and Olng’esherr: three male rites of

passage of the Maasai community 00887

8.COM 7.a.8 Mexico Pilgrimage to Wirikuta 00862

8.COM 7.a.10 Nicaragua Traditions and oral expressions of the Rama people 00777

8.COM 7.a.11

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Glasoechko, male two-part singing in Dolni Polog 00737

8.COM 7.a.12 Uganda Empaako tradition of the Batooro, Banyoro, Batuku,

Batagwenda and Banyabindi of western Uganda 00904

B. Observations on the 2013 nominations and additional recommendations Observations and recommendations on applying the criteria for inscription

3. As shown above, three nominations received a recommendation to inscribe and nine received a recommendation not to inscribe. In the case of the nine nominations that received an unfavourable recommendation, two failed to satisfy a single criterion (U.3), while for seven files there were at least two criteria that were not satisfied (U.3 and U.4). All of the nominations satisfied criterion U.5.

(4)

Criterion

Files where this was the sole criterion not satisfied

Files where this was one of several criteria

not satisfied

U.1: The element constitutes intangible cultural heritage

as defined in Article 2 of the Convention. 0 2

U.2: The element is in urgent need of safeguarding because its viability is at risk despite the efforts of the community, group or, if applicable, individuals and State(s) Party(ies) concerned;

0 1

U.3: Safeguarding measures are elaborated that may enable the community, group or, if applicable, individuals concerned to continue the practice and transmission of the element.

2 7

U.4: The element has been nominated following the widest possible participation of the community, group or, if applicable, individuals concerned and with their free, prior and informed consent.

0 7

U.5: The element is included in an inventory of the intangible cultural heritage present in the territory(ies) of the submitting State(s) Party(ies), as defined in Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention.

0 0

4. With regard to criterion U.1, the Consultative Body found that submitting States had a tendency to inadequately describe the element in its complexity, focussing rather on a part of the element, for example, presenting a dance without its musical components or a sport without details of its broader environment and the practitioners and observers involved in its traditional practice. The Body was sometimes able to conclude nevertheless that the criterion was satisfied, but it considers that a fuller description of the element’s diverse components is preferable, especially recalling that nomination files are made available online and provide a primary point of reference for years and decades to come.

5. A different case arose with one nomination in which the Consultative Body could not understand what was the element being nominated, considering that it seemed to be an entire culture or a set of cultural expressions and not a specific element. As the Subsidiary Body, Consultative Body, open-ended working group of 2012 and Committee have all previously observed, the right balance needs to be struck between over-specification and over-generalization so as not to obscure the understanding of what the proposed element is (and what it is not).

6. The Consultative Body also noticed the tendency to concentrate the description on historical and technical characteristics of the element while not including its social functions and cultural meanings today. Body members emphasize, as they did in their 2012 report (Document ITH/12/7.COM/8), that they would like to see a vivid description of the nature and form of the element as well as how it functions within its community; a technical description alone is not sufficient to allow readers, including community members, to understand the identity of the element and its meaning for the community.

7. In some cases, the Body encountered elements that are proposed to be revitalized when it seems that they are no longer practised. Once more, there is a challenge in determining the point where there is still time to take urgent measures to safeguard an element or when the

(5)

element has arrived at a point of no return, where it is no longer practised and therefore does not constitute intangible cultural heritage, as defined in Article 2 of the Convention.

8. Finally for criterion U.1, as was also noted during previous cycles, if an element is not adequately defined, that affects the identification of the threats it faces (criterion U.2), the safeguarding measures required (criterion U.3) and the contours of the community (criteria U.4 and U.5). It is consequently crucial that each nomination include an adequate and coherent description of the element, since all else depends therefrom.

9. The recurrent problems with criterion U.3 were due in no small measure to an incomplete analysis of the element’s current viability and the threats facing it. A clear description of the threats confronting the element for criterion U.2 is essential for the proper design and implementation of safeguarding measures for criterion U.3. Although the Consultative Body found in only one case that criterion U.2 was not satisfied, in other cases it gave the benefit of the doubt to the submitting State and concluded that the element was in need of urgent safeguarding, even if the threats were not comprehensively and systematically treated as it would have liked.

10. Having recognized that objective threats confront many expressions of intangible cultural heritage worldwide and render their urgent safeguarding necessary, the Body as a whole was nevertheless not convinced by the arguments sometimes raised by one or another of its members that recommended disregarding serious deficiencies in the safeguarding measures proposed on the basis that the element itself was in extreme danger of disappearance. It recalls that a specific procedure has been elaborated in Article 17.3 of the Convention and paragraph 32 of the Operational Directives, providing that, ‘In case of extreme urgency [...]

the Bureau of the Committee may invite the State(s) Party(ies) concerned to submit a nomination to the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding on an accelerated schedule;’ such nominations are then examined on an accelerated basis and, the Consultative Body recalls, with a certain degree of flexibility as concerns the other criteria. To date, no State Party has submitted a nomination under such conditions, and the Body therefore felt itself obliged to conclude that the urgency of the threats identified did not justify ignoring shortcomings in the nomination as a whole.

11. Criterion U.3 continues to present the greatest difficulty for submitting States, as was previously noted by the Consultative Body in its 2011 and 2012 reports (Document ITH/11/6.COM/CONF.206/8 and Document ITH/12/7.COM/8). Nine out of twelve nominations did not satisfy this criterion, and even for the three nominations that were finally recommended, there were several Body members who were initially unconvinced by the safeguarding measures.

12. The Consultative Body found that safeguarding plans were often vague and did not clearly respond to the threats that had been identified. Often, inadequate information was provided about legal frameworks and methodologies to support the implementation of the safeguarding measures. In some cases institutions were to be created but their safeguarding role was not defined nor how they would help to safeguard the element demonstrated. The Committee may wish to remind submitting States that safeguarding plans should respond to the threats and include clear and coherent information on objectives, results, activities, work- plans and overall cost.

13. Among the threats listed in the nominations, some were of such a generic nature – for example, globalization or modernization – that it was very difficult for the safeguarding plan to respond to them. Once more, the Body points to the necessity to propose specific measures that address specific threats, rather than generic measures aimed at generic threats.

14. The Consultative Body would also like to caution against the tendency of adopting a laundry list approach to safeguarding measures. Even if Article 2.3 of the Convention identifies a set of possible measures including ‘identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion, enhancement, transmission [...and...] revitalization [...]’, the Body suggests that not all need to be included in every safeguarding plan, and that a strategic

(6)

emphasis on a few core measures would be preferable to a plan that seeks to do a little of everything and nothing in depth. Each element is unique and is faced with specific threats that require specific, effective actions. It is therefore better in the Body’s view to choose from the possible measures those that are most appropriate to addressing the actual threats faced by the element.

15. The Body also calls attention to the imperative to avoid using coercive measures to safeguard intangible cultural heritage. Such measures, even if arising from a good intention, are unlikely to be effective and contradict the principles underlying the Convention.

16. Safeguarding plans should penetrate society deeply and at the local level and should adopt long-term perspectives. They should not consist solely of top-down, centrally-driven measures dependent on governmental support that could prove transient; rather, there needs to be long-term involvement of the community and an entire chain of actors that promise greater sustainability than measures supported only by the State. The Body found it unfortunate that in some cases this sustainability was jeopardized by the omnipresence of the State, with few other supporting actors participating in the safeguarding plan.

17. This does not mean that the Consultative Body did not also wish to see evidence of the State’s role in and commitment to safeguarding. The ICH-01 form asks submitting States to

‘provide evidence that the State(s) Party(ies) concerned has the commitment to support the safeguarding effort by creating favourable conditions for its implementation.’ Such a commitment was not demonstrated only in terms of financing the measures proposed, but could take many forms. The willingness of the States to submit a nomination to the Urgent Safeguarding List is already a demonstration of such commitment, and the Body does not doubt the States’ engagement, but it hopes to see broader evidence.

18. The Consultative Body concludes that many of the shortcomings it encountered in the safeguarding plans result directly from the fact that communities were too rarely involved in their planning and were foreseen to have little role in their future implementation. The Body would like to recall that the safeguarding of an element cannot be achieved without the full participation of its community. In this regard, there needs to be coherence between criteria U.3 and U.4 to demonstrate the participation of the community in the planning and design of safeguarding measures. Members noticed that there was often a lack of understanding and realization of the necessity to involve communities in developing the safeguarding plan.

Often seen only as informants or beneficiaries, the community members are rarely taken as key actors in the planning and implementation of safeguarding measures.

19. In this context, the Body found that seven files did not satisfy criterion 4; in every case there were also serious insufficiencies in the safeguarding plan. The criterion itself has two parts:

all seven files failed the first test of demonstrating ‘the widest possible participation of the community, group or, if applicable, individuals concerned’ during the elaboration of the nomination. The second test – evidence of their free, prior and informed consent – was deemed satisfactory in three cases, marginal in two and unconvincing in two. The Consultative Body considers that ‘widest possible participation’ does not refer to simply serving as sources of information or approving a completed nomination. The presence and active participation of the community, group or individuals should be evident not only when referring to criterion U.4 or U.5, but also throughout the whole file. It should be seen in the definition of the element, the assessment of its viability and identification of threats, the planning and design of safeguarding measures, as well as the elaboration of the inventory.

20. With regard to free, prior and informed consent, the Consultative Body echoes previous reports of the Subsidiary Body (Document 7.COM 11 ) and of the evaluators of nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List (Document 5.COM INF.5) in regretting that submitting States do not heed the instructions within the ICH-01 form expressing a preference for individualized and diverse evidence of consent rather than ‘standard or uniform declarations’.

Communities should be given the opportunity to express themselves in a diversity of ways, which is reflective of the diversity of intangible cultural heritage. The Body recalls that there are many ways to demonstrate the consent of the community, including the use of audio-

(7)

visual means that are particularly suited to oral tradition-based societies, as was done in one nomination, or other modalities of traditional expression such as symbolic objects.

21. Although the documents often show signatures of many people, it is rarely specified why, when, and for what purpose this consent was given. The Consultative Body therefore found it useful when nominations explained the context in which consent was obtained rather than simply stating that consent was obtained. For instance in one nomination it was indicated that there was a meeting and pictures of the meeting and its records were provided.

22. The Consultative Body encountered a case in which the community appears to be divided on the question of whether nominating the element for inclusion in the Urgent Safeguarding List is the best response to the situation of the element and the needs and aspirations of the community. This recalls the reality that communities include diverse persons with sometimes- divergent perspectives, and it is not surprising that a community may not be in agreement on the procedure and submission of a nomination. Indeed, it is perhaps more surprising when a community is presented as unanimous in sharing a single opinion – yet again an argument for individualized expressions of free, prior and informed consent rather than simply signatures on a uniform declaration.

23. Members of the Body are well aware of the cultural, political and administrative specificities involved in the submission of a nomination and the impact of such local conditions on the manner in which a community provides its consent. This is often done through the mediation of persons or institutions that speak in the name of the communities, and while such intermediaries are welcome, the nomination should demonstrate in what way they are indeed representative of the community, taking further care to ensure that diverse segments of the community are represented and not a single entity or institution alone.

24. This raises a more general question about the intermediaries who prepare the nomination:

often a consultant, expert, non-governmental organization member or government official.

Sometimes that person is also a member of the community or the organization is made up of community members, but often a researcher or official comes from outside of the community.

More information on the background of such mediators or actors would allow evaluators and the Committee to better understand their roles in the preparation of the nomination and thus better appreciate the degree to which it reflects the perspectives of the communities concerned.

25. Criterion U.5 was satisfied by all the nominations. Nevertheless, members of the Body encountered difficulty with this criterion as oftentimes the URL link of the inventory indicated in the nomination did not work or worked only on some occasions and not on others. It was also the case that the link sometimes displayed different content at different times, or that specific information on the element in question was not easily found. In one case, eleven Body members and the Secretariat had repeatedly failed to find the relevant information, but one assiduous member saved the day by managing to locate it hidden away on the ministry’s website. The Body therefore recommends that the Committee ask States to submit an excerpt of the inventory translated into English or French. This could also help evaluators and the Committee to confirm that it is indeed an inventory of intangible cultural heritage and not a mere list of elements.

Other observations and recommendations of a transversal nature

26. The Consultative Body, recognizing the important role of intangible cultural heritage as ‘a guarantee of sustainable development’, as stated in the Convention’s preamble, welcomes the fact that several nominations were framed in the perspective of sustainable development.

It encourages States Parties to continue to develop and strengthen this perspective into account when submitting files for the Urgent Safeguarding List and to promote intangible cultural heritage as a sustainable development tool for local communities.

27. It is once more important for the Consultative Body to highlight, as it did in the 2011 and 2012 cycles, that even when it could not provide a favourable recommendation it appreciated

(8)

the diversity of the intangible cultural heritage presented in the nominations. It echoes its previous reports and those of the Subsidiary Body to remind States Parties, and communities in particular, that a recommendation not to inscribe an element does not in any way question the intrinsic merits of the intangible cultural heritage concerned. The Body’s recommendations are formulated entirely on the basis of the contents of the nomination presented to it, and do not imply a value judgment on the element or in any way question whether or not it is intangible cultural heritage in need of urgent safeguarding.

28. The Consultative Body also reiterates that nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List and requests for International Assistance have complementary but distinct natures and purposes and that inscription to the Urgent Safeguarding List does not automatically result in the granting of International Assistance. In its general report (Document ITH/08/8.COM 7) the Body suggests that the Committee may wish to devise a procedure for submitting a combined ICH-01 nomination to the Urgent Safeguarding List and ICH-04 request for International Assistance, responding to the fact that States Parties continue to believe wrongly that such assistance is an automatic benefit of inscription. A combined ICH-01/ICH- 04 form might allow more effective formulation of safeguarding plans, and the Committee may wish to implement it on an experimental basis.

29. The Body was presented, for the first time, with a nomination to the Urgent Safeguarding List of an element inscribed at present on the Representative List. In its draft decision, the Consultative Body recommends to the Committee not to inscribe it at this time on the Urgent Safeguarding List, its inscription on the Representative List remaining intact. The Body also recalls that International Assistance can be provided for activities at the national level aimed at safeguarding any of the intangible cultural heritage present on the territory of a requesting State Party, whether or not it is inscribed on the Urgent Safeguarding List.

30. In its 2011 and 2012 reports (Document 6.COM 8 and Document 7.COM 8), the Consultative Body referred to the mandatory ten-minute video and ten photographs as important complements to the written nomination. Within the 2013 nominations, members of the Consultative Body also found discrepancies and a lack of coherence between the information included in the written file and that presented in the video. It was often the case that information was provided in the video that was found nowhere in the nomination form. The Consultative Body further reiterates the need for States Parties to demonstrate a close correspondence and a coherency between the description of the element presented in the audiovisual materials and the information included in the nomination form. The video should make use of image and sound to complement the written text with sensory experiences that cannot easily be captured in words, but members emphasize that the video is not intended to present essential description or argumentation that is lacking in the text.

31. In its Decision 7.COM 8, the Committee requested the Consultative Body, when evaluating Urgent Safeguarding List nominations during the 2013 cycle, ‘to identify good examples, if any, among the videos submitted as part of those nominations and to bring them to the attention of the Committee’. There was broad agreement within the Body that the videos submitted by Guatemala for ‘Paach ceremony’ and by Kenya for ‘Enkipaata, Eunoto and Olng’esherr: three male rites of passage of the Maasai community’ stood out, offering clear descriptions of the element and its context, vivid images and evocative music. The video submitted by Mexico for ‘Pilgrimage to Wirikuta’ was praised by some, particularly for its musical performances, but reservations were expressed about a tendency to essentialize the community and tradition. The two videos from Botswana for ‘Seperu folk dance, associated traditions and practices of the Basubiya community in Botswana’s Chobe District’ and for

‘Traditional folk music of Bakgatla ba Kgafela’ were also appreciated, particularly because the latter presented the element through the words of a practitioner.

32. In general, Body members agreed, they would have liked the videos to better reflect the now- common practice in ethnographic documentation of allowing community members and practitioners of the element to narrate and explain on their own behalf. Too often, the approach used was that of voice-off narrator who delivers a lecture, illustrated by images and sound. That conventional style of documentary representation, members agreed, does not

(9)

conform to the Convention’s principles that communities themselves should identify their own heritage and does not demonstrate that they participated widely in the preparation of the nomination and video. Members also expressed discomfort with certain videos that seemed to be framed more as publicity or as tourism promotion than as complements to a nomination. Members of the Consultative Body would have preferred to see practices and expressions of intangible heritage in their normal context rather than those staged in order to be filmed.

33. Finally, the Consultative Body, as it did in its 2011 and 2012 reports (Document 6.COM 8 and Document 7.COM 8), calls the attention of the Committee and the States Parties once again to the essential role that communities have in the elaboration of nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List and especially in the planning and implementation of safeguarding measures. The communities need to be placed at the centre of all safeguarding efforts as it is their responsibility and prerogative. The State can be an agent of support but should reflect the aspirations of the communities, particularly as regards safeguarding measures. There can be no safeguarding of an element without the interest, enthusiasm and active participation of the concerned community. As such, communities must assume a central role both in planning and in implementing proposed safeguarding measures.

C. Draft decisions

34. The Committee may wish to adopt the following decisions:

DRAFT DECISION 8.COM 7.a

The Committee,

1. Having examined Documents ITH/13/8/COM/7 and ITH/13/8.COM/7.a, 2. Recalling Chapter I of the Operational Directives and its Decision 7.COM 12,

3. Commends the eleven States Parties that submitted nominations for possible inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List;

4. Notes with satisfaction the submission of nominations that demonstrate a clear link between intangible cultural heritage and sustainable development and encourages States Parties to continue to submit nominations that highlight this relationship;

5. Invites States Parties to ensure the participation of communities throughout the nomination process and especially in the design and implementation of sustainable safeguarding measures;

6. Further invites States Parties, when preparing videos to accompany nominations, to employ to the greatest extent possible the approach of allowing the communities, groups and individuals concerned with an element to speak about it on their own behalf, rather than relying only on third-person narration, and to have them reflect practices and expressions of intangible heritage in their normal context;

7. Reiterates that nominations will only be considered complete if documentary evidence is provided demonstrating that the nominated element is included in an inventory of the intangible cultural heritage present in the territory(ies) of the submitting State(s) Party(ies), as defined in Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention (Decisions 7.COM 11 and 7.COM 20.2) and decides that such documentation shall include a relevant extract of the inventory(ies) in English or in French.

(10)

DRAFT DECISION 8.COM 7.a.1

The Committee

1. Takes note that Azerbaijan has nominated Chovqan, a traditional Karabakh horse- riding game (No. 00905) for inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding:

Chovqan is a traditional horse-riding game played on a flat, grassy field by two competing teams of players mounted on Karabakh horses. Each team has five riders, with two fullbacks and three forwards. The game starts at the centre of the field and players use wooden mallets to try to drive a small leather or wooden ball into their opponents’ goal. The game is interspersed with instrumental folk music called janghi.

Chovqan players and trainers are all local male farmers and skilled riders. They traditionally wear large astrakhan hats, long tight-fitting coats with a high waist, and special trousers, socks and shoes. People of all ages come to watch this traditional game and to support their teams. Chovqan strengthens feelings of identity rooted in nomadic culture and linked to the perception of the horse as an integral part of everyday life. The specific rules, skills and techniques of Chovqan are transmitted from experienced players to beginners through collective training. The practice and transmission of Chovqan have weakened, however, due to a loss of interest among the youth, combined with urbanization and migration, leading to a shortage of players, trainers and Karabakh horses.

2. Decides that, from the information included in the file, the nomination satisfies the following criteria for inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List:

U.1: The knowledge and skills related to Chovqan are transmitted from generation to generation and from more experienced players to younger ones; Chovqan is part of the everyday life of the community and provides its practitioners with a feeling of identity and belonging;

U.2: The viability of the element is at risk because of a decrease in the number of Chovqan practitioners and trainers, reduced interest of young people in the traditional practice, and the growing scarcity of the Karabakh breed of horses;

these factors are aggravated by more general threats such as urbanization and migration and the reduction of pasture areas;

U.3: The participation of practitioners, non-governmental organizations and the State in past and current safeguarding efforts is demonstrated and the well-formulated safeguarding measures are planned with the participation of its practitioners and provide evidence of the State Party’s commitment to the safeguarding of the element;

U.4: The nomination was elaborated with full participation of Chovqan practitioners, trainers, experts and two civil society organizations; evidence of free, prior and informed consent is provided;

U.5: Chovqan was included in 2010 in the Register of Intangible Cultural Heritage of the Republic of Azerbaijan, established by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and updated and monitored by the Documentation and Inventory Board;

3. Inscribes Chovqan, a traditional Karabakh horse-riding game on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding;

4. Notes that the nomination concentrates mainly on the practice of the horse game as a sport and encourages the State Party to give full consideration to the social, cultural and symbolic role of Chovqan today, as well as the music, crafts and other expressions that are associated with it;

5. Further encourages the State Party to take care when designing, planning and implementing safeguarding measures to involve all communities concerned with the

(11)

practice of Chovqan today, including the craftspeople, musicians, breeders and horse trainers and, as appropriate, associations representing the public in order to ensure the long-term viability of the element.

The Committee

1. Takes note that Botswana has nominated Seperu folk dance, associated traditions and practices of the Basubiya community in Botswana’s Chobe District (No. 00902) for inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding:

The Seperu folk dance is a vital part of Basubiya traditions and practices. It features prominently during girls’ initiation ceremonies, the coronation of Basubiya chiefs, wedding ceremonies and other festivities. During performances, the male dancer leads a succession of pairs of women dancers while he waves a fly whisk to direct his partners’ movements. The female dancers take turns, each displaying her range of skills. The distinguishing feature is the woman’s dress made of eight pieces of skirt: this rises into the shape of a peacock’s tail as the dancers move slowly back and forth, gently moving their waists and shaking their shoulders. A group of vocalists encircles the dancers, singing and clapping throughout the performance. Most practitioners are aged between 50 and 70 and only dance on a part-time basis. The skills and knowledge are transmitted orally and through observation to immediate family members; however, enactment is declining. The few active practitioners are mainly elderly women – there are only twenty-five active male participants. Moreover, young people’s lack of interest in learning the dance and their migration for employment have resulted in a significant drop in transmission.

U.2: The dance is in need of urgent safeguarding because its active practitioners are all elderly; the diminishing participation of men and the disinterest of young people in learning the dance movements present threats to its viability;

U.5: During a community-based inventorying project launched in July 2011, Seperu folk dance was included in the Chobe District Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage Elements, to be updated by the Basubiya community in collaboration with the District Intangible Cultural Heritage Committee and the Department of Arts and Culture;

3. Further decides that, from the information included in the file, the nomination does not satisfy the following criteria for inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List:

U.1: The characteristics of the Seperu dance and the practices and traditions associated with it are not clearly described and there is need for more details concerning the nature of the songs and lyrics as well as the symbolism of its choreography and costume to define the social and educational functions and cultural meanings of the element; a number of assertions are not substantiated;

U.3: The proposed safeguarding measures such as the creation of cultural festivals or derivative products do not respond adequately to the apparent threats facing the element, particularly as regards the need to strengthen transmission, and other measures to encourage its continued practice in its traditional context are lacking;

the measures are vague and top-down, lacking details to demonstrate how they will be achieved and how they will benefit the element and the community; the budget does not seem feasible and funding sources are not identified, nor is a calendar proposed; moreover, some measures are identical to those in another

(12)

file and do not seem to reflect the specific situation and requirements of the element;

U.4: Although the nomination mentions the involvement of various parties concerned in the preparation of the nomination, it lacks information concerning the community’s actual participation beyond attending workshops and consenting to the nomination;

4. Decides not to inscribe Seperu folk dance, associated traditions and practices of the Basubiya community in Botswana’s Chobe District on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding;

5. Takes note with appreciation of the State Party’s concern for a rural community under economic stress and its commitment to strengthening the practice of its intangible cultural heritage by youth;

6. Encourages the State Party, if it wishes to resubmit a nomination, to provide an accurate and detailed description of the element that fully takes account of its musical and poetic aspects and of the ‘associated traditions and practices’ that appear in its title;

7. Reminds the State Party that the nomination must clearly explain the social functions and cultural meanings of the element for the Busubiya community, as well as explain more specifically the threats to the element;

8. Recommends the State Party to propose a feasible safeguarding plan that addresses specific threats and can produce concrete results through detailed activities, with a clear timetable and realistic budget that outlines sources of funding including in-kind support;

9. Recalls that each element requires its own specific safeguarding measures guided by the community and responsive to its needs and that generic measures common to multiple nominations cannot suffice.

The Committee

1. Takes note that Botswana has nominated Traditional folk music of Bakgatla ba Kgafela (No. 00752) for inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding:

Dikopelo, the traditional music of the Bakgatla ba Kgafela, is a form of competitive choral singing and dancing without instrumental accompaniment. It is commonly performed during the festive season and at social events. One choir issues a challenge to another, and the two compete in a contest displaying their own unique styles and dance patterns. The songs celebrate the history and culture of the Bakgatla ba Kgafela, but also convey messages about contemporary issues, including cultural practices and beliefs, socio-economic and political developments, violence, poverty, HIV and AIDS, and political corruption. Dikopelo is a communal practice, involving close family relatives and neighbours; members provide each other with mutual support in times of need. Women, men and children may all participate, but experienced older practitioners direct the practice and transmit their skills through instruction and observation. The number of performances has diminished in recent years, largely as a result of increased migration to cities. In addition, popular music has replaced Dikopelo at social occasions such as weddings, parties and celebrations. Consequently, many people see Dikopelo as a cultural practice that is no longer economically viable, which has led to a loss of interest among younger generations.

(13)

U.1: Conveying the social and cultural values of the society as well as topical messages, Dikopelo music is a community practice that brings together men, women and children of Bakgatla ba Kgafela and provides them a sense of shared identity and cultural continuity;

U.2: The practice currently faces severe threats to its viability, including shortage of spaces both for rehearsal and for performance, misappropriation of the community’s traditions by singer-songwriters, the adoption of external standards of value, the lack of interest among youth migrating to the city and the diminished respect for its performers;

U.5: In 2010, the community of Bakgatla ba Kgafela participated in community-based intangible cultural heritage inventorying that resulted in the documentation and inclusion of the Traditional folk music of Bakgatla ba Kgafela in the Kgatleng District Intangible Cultural Heritage Inventory, managed by Phuthadikobo Museum and the Department of Arts and Culture;

U.3: Despite a number of safeguarding measures including legal recognition of folk groups and practitioners that increases their access to rehearsal and performance spaces and those aimed at increasing their knowledge of intellectual property protections, the measures proposed are largely top-down and include some that are identical to those proposed in another nomination from the State Party, which makes it difficult to discern the participation of the community in their development; inconsistencies are found between the proposed activities and budget, and no resources are identified to implement them; the timetable is too general;

U.4: The nomination does not adequately describe how the community participated widely in the preparation of the nomination; doubts arise about the extent of their actual participation given the striking similarities between this and another nomination submitted by the State Party;

4. Decides not to inscribe Traditional folk music of Bakgatla ba Kgafela on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding;

5. Commends the State Party for submitting a nomination that demonstrates the importance of traditional folk music in the promotion of shared identity and cultural continuity of the Bakgatla ba Kgafela community, and in particular its use as vehicle to spread topical messages concerning HIV and AIDS and other issues of concern to society;

6. Notes with interest the desire of the State Party to strengthen the capacity of the concerned community and practitioners and support them in the transmission of the element within the educational system;

7. Reminds the State Party that safeguarding must be built on specific measures fully integrating the participation of the community and that a safeguarding plan for a given element does not necessarily meet the safeguarding needs of another element, even if the elements are similar in nature;

8. Recommends that the State Party provide specific safeguarding measures with detailed and concrete activities, a coherent timetable, detailed budget and a clear identification of project stakeholders and their missions and resources available, including in-kind;

(14)

9. Invites the State Party, in case it resubmits the nomination, to consider using a vernacular term within the title of the element.

The Committee

1. Takes note that Côte d’Ivoire has nominated Gbofe of Afounkaha, the music of the transverse trumps of the Tagbana community (No. 00565) for inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding:

The Gbofe of Afounkaha is a form of music performed by men and women, both young and old, of the Tagbana community at events such as weddings, baptisms, funerals and large celebratory parties. The orchestral groups include six transverse trumpets, two drums, dancers and singers. The songs praise the community chiefs and leaders, but also act as social criticism and explore themes of love, death and gratitude through proverbs, parables or topical commentary; the lyrics are characterized by rich imagery and hyperbole. The songs also have a key educational function, transmitting knowledge and social and interpersonal skills through the history of the Tagbana.

Fathers, mothers and other experienced practitioners usually transmit the knowledge and skills by observation and practice to their children. At present the continuity of Gbofe is threatened, however, as most practitioners are of an advanced age and live in precarious circumstances. The young are increasingly migrating towards urban, mining and coastal areas in search of paid employment. Furthermore, the trees used to make the trumpets are becoming rare as a result of deforestation. The transmission of Gbofe has consequently been weakened.

U.1: The Gbofe transverse trumps and songs are markers of Tagbana identity that accompany diverse ceremonies and events and offer commentary on society and its members; their skills and knowledge are transmitted principally within the family;

U.2: The viability of the Gbofe is threatened particularly by the fact that the practitioners are aged and few, and young people have little interest in apprenticeship; recent military and political disturbances prompted displacement of the population to elsewhere and deforestation reduces access to raw materials;

U.5: The element was included in 2012 in the Inventory List of National Cultural Heritage, administered by the Ministry of Culture and Francophonie;

U.3: Proposed safeguarding measures are oriented towards popularization of the Gbofe among the general public and construction of facilities and not so much towards enhancing the viability and sustainable development of the element within the Tagbana community or building the capacities of practitioners; they do not demonstrate the active participation of the community in the process of their elaboration and are premised upon the availability of funds whose source is not clearly identified;

U.4: The nomination does not demonstrate the active participation of the community in the elaboration of the nomination – and particularly of the safeguarding measures – except to provide information or support for the nomination; evidence of free, prior and informed consent from the members of the community is not sufficient;

(15)

4. Decides not to inscribe Gbofe of Afounkaha, the music of the transverse trumps of the Tagbana community on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding;

5. Takes note that the element is inscribed at present on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity and that the present decision in no way affects the existing inscription;

6. Takes further note of the important role that the cultural expression of Gbofe music continues to play in the Tagbana communities, contributing to social cohesion within and between them;

7. Encourages the State Party to involve the communities, including the makers of the instrument, more fully in assessing its viability and meaning in their lives and particularly in identifying the safeguarding measures to be undertaken;

8. Recalls to the State Party that inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding does not imply the granting of financial assistance from the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund, but invites the State Party to consider submission of a request for such assistance;

9. Invites the State Party to give careful attention to the sacred and secular aspects of the practices when planning and implementing measures intended to raise awareness of the importance of Gbofe music and strengthen its transmission.

The Committee

1. Takes note that Guatemala has nominated Paach ceremony (No. 00863) for inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding:

The Paach ceremony is a corn-veneration ritual celebrated in San Pedro Sacatepéquez. The ceremony gives thanks for good harvests in a ritual that highlights the close connection between humans and nature and features prayers in the Mam language. The participants are mostly older farmers, both men and women, with extensive ties to the community and who are recognized as its leaders. Four prayer sayers, or parlamenteros, offer prayers during the ceremony, supported by four auxiliary parlamenteros; meanwhile four godmothers dress ceremonial corncobs and coordinate the preparation and serving of food. The Paach ceremony strengthens the identity of the community of San Pedro and its knowledge and respect for nature and its conservation. The transmission process is both oral and practical, with a group leader instructing new members at workshops and children accompanying their grandparents during the ceremony. In recent years, the Paach ceremony has decreased in frequency, with some young people seeing it as irrelevant, while economic insecurity has caused some bearers to withdraw from the practice.

Furthermore, the advanced age of the elders, combined with diminished transmission, might result in the disappearance of this cultural expression.

U.1: The Paach ceremony is experienced by the community of San Pedro Sacatepéquez as an integral part of its cultural heritage and identity; associated rituals, music, dance, processional and food practices are transmitted from grandparents to grandchildren who accompany them while performing different daily tasks;

U.2: Due to the decreasing number of practitioners, their age and their economic insecurity as well as to the economic and social changes arising from the

(16)

increasing urbanization of San Pedro Sacatepéquez, the viability of the Paach ceremony is seriously threatened;

U.3: Building on efforts of community members and local authorities, safeguarding measures aim to broaden the community of practitioners, conduct an in-depth inventory, raise awareness of the social, cultural and environmental meanings of the Paach ceremony and promote recognition of its main bearers; the modality and responsibilities for their implementation should have been better explained as well as the ability to engage younger generations; furthermore, the lack of identified funding sources for a significant part of the costs puts the feasibility of the proposed measures in doubt;

U.4: Practitioners of the Paach ceremony were involved in field research and working sessions for the elaboration of the nomination, in particular through their Ceremonial Committee and Prayer Sayers, and they gave their free, prior and informed consent to it;

U.5: The Paach ceremony is included in the Cultural Assets Registry administered by the General Department of Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Ministry of Culture and Sports.

3. Inscribes Paach ceremony on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding;

4. Takes note that the State Party has submitted the nomination of Paach ceremony to the Urgent Safeguarding List for the second time and notes with concern the persisting threats to its viability;

5. Welcomes the efforts to involve communities more fully in the nomination process and recognizes that the new nomination better reflects their view and aspirations;

6. Recalls that inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List in no way implies the availability of funds from the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund to implement the safeguarding plan proposed and that requests for International Assistance involve an independent procedure;

7. Encourages the State Party to continue its efforts to develop safeguarding strategies that are proportionate to the financial and human resources actually available or likely to be mobilized;

8. Invites the State Party to submit a report on the implementation of the safeguarding measures, and particularly on the mobilization of necessary resources, for examination by the Committee at its tenth session, in conformity with paragraph 161 of the Operational Directives.

The Committee

1. Takes note that Indonesia has nominated Tenun Ikat Sumba weaving of Indonesia (No. 00868) for inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding:

Weavers in villages throughout Sumba Island on the Indonesian archipelago create woven cotton textiles that are renowned for their beauty and the great variety of patterns and motifs, and rich in cultural values related to the life and environment of the Sumba people. The weaving is carried out and transmitted by women, who spin the cotton, make the natural dyes and design the traditional patterns and motifs that are created through resist-dyeing. Certain threads are bound tightly together with string or palm leaves so that the dye cannot penetrate the tied sections. After dyeing, the ties are loosened and the process is repeated for each colour. Choosing designs and tying the threads requires a high degree of skill, and mothers traditionally transmit the

(17)

techniques to their daughters prior to marriage. Some Tenun Ikat Sumba pieces are prized as heirlooms or status symbols. Today they are worn only at special ceremonies such as births, graduations, marriages or funerals. These ceremonies are becoming less frequent, however, and the number of craftspeople has also dropped due to migration. Transmission has diminished accordingly and few children now learn to make Tenun Ikat Sumba or understand the traditional cosmological beliefs and symbolism of its animal and plant motifs.

U.1: Tenun Ikat Sumba is linked to the cultural identity of the Sumba people, formerly as daily wear and now as ceremonial clothing; the skills and know-how of weaving and dyeing are transmitted from mothers to daughters; the community concerned encompasses a range of craftspeople, their customers and aficionados, researchers, other stakeholders and State authorities;

U.2: Despite the efforts of the communities, Tenun Ikat Sumba is threatened due to such factors as changes of lifestyle, reduction in the ceremonial uses of the textile, scarcity and fluctuating costs of raw materials, competition from cheaper factory-made materials and a resulting decrease in the number of weavers;

U.4: The nomination was prepared in consultation with representative members of communities and groups, and free, prior and informed consent was provided from a wide range of community members;

U.5: Tenun Ikat Sumba is included in the national cultural heritage inventory maintained by the Directorate for Internalization of Values and Cultural Diplomacy of the Ministry of Education and Culture; the inventory classifies it as ‘still maintaining’ its viability.

3. Further decides that, from the information included in the file, the nomination does not satisfy the following criterion for inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List:

U.3: The proposed safeguarding measures continue efforts of the past two decades that do not seem to have been effective, and it is not demonstrated why they should become more effective in the future; it is not clear how the measures – particularly the formalization of transmission – reflect the will or aspirations of the practitioners or aim at strengthening their capacities; no measures are elaborated responding to several of the risks identified, such as the scarcity and fluctuating costs of raw materials, the lack of financial resources and equipment for practitioners; moreover, the proposed introduction of a regulation to make the wearing of Tenun Ikat Sumba obligatory is contrary to the spirit of the Convention;

4. Decides not to inscribe Tenun Ikat Sumba weaving of Indonesia on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding;

5. Notes that efforts have been mobilized to revitalize the element through a variety of safeguarding measures, including raising awareness of its importance and its introduction into formal education;

6. Requests the State Party to provide coherent information concerning the viability of the element and the extent to which its continuity is threatened;

7. Invites the State Party to involve the practitioners more fully in the preparation and implementation of safeguarding measures, and not only as informants;

8. Encourages the State Party to consider possible impacts of formalized transmission on the current modes of transmission among the community of practitioners;

(18)

9. Recalls that all safeguarding measures should be voluntary and reflect the will and aspirations of the community concerned and that compulsion should have no place among them;

10. Notes with concern the resemblance of this nomination to others previously submitted by the State Party, the identification of threats in generic terms, a standardized approach to proposed safeguarding measures, and the preponderance of quantitative methods based on small samples over qualitative analysis.

The Committee

1. Takes note that Kenya has nominated Enkipaata, Eunoto and Olng’esherr: three male rites of passage of the Maasai community (No. 00887) for inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding:

Between the ages of 15 and 30, young men of the Maasai community undergo three interrelated male rites of passage. The aim is to transmit social values and educate initiates in their responsibilities as men in Maasai society. The first rite, Enkipaata, inducts the boys as warriors, who must keep their hair unshaved and set up a homestead in a secluded village where they work, eat and perform duties collectively.

They receive oral instruction on Maasai rituals, rearing livestock, family linkages, and conflict management and resolution, transmitted through lessons, songs, folk-tales, proverbs and riddles. The second rite, Eunoto, is the shaving of the hair, representing the start of adulthood. The third rite, Olng’esherr, is a meat-eating ceremony marking the beginning of eldership. Women construct huts for the initiates, make key artefacts, prepare meals, perform dances and songs, and shave the hair of the initiates. The rites provide the Maasai with a sense of cultural identity and continuity and enhance unity and cohesiveness. At present, transmission is weakening as a result of reduced frequency, shrinking participation and a decline in the number of elders. The shift towards an agricultural economy has also encroached on land previously used for the rites.

U.1: An integral part of the social and cultural fabric of the Maasai community, the three male rites of passage facilitate the transmission of values and knowledge between generations, integrating youth into Maasai society and providing them a sense of identity;

U.2: Despite the efforts of the community, the practice and transmission of the element are declining due to changes in the land tenure system, shift from a pastoral to an agricultural lifestyle, climate change, migration for employment, as well as the increased value given to formal education;

U.5: The element is included in the National Inventory of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Kenya, managed and updated by the Ministry of State for National Heritage and Culture;

U.3: The proposed safeguarding measures, such as those focused on reinforcing the capacities and involvement of Maasai communities as well as the use of mentorship between older and younger members, present certain strengths;

nevertheless, other measures are not clearly defined – particularly the role of the cultural centres to be constructed – and the usefulness of inventorying and mapping of spaces for the practice and transmission of the element is not demonstrated; the financing of activities relies heavily on the mobilization of the

(19)

community resources and on funding assumed to come from UNESCO, but which is not guaranteed, and the commitments of the State are not well demonstrated;

U.4: The widest possible participation in the nomination process of relevant groups and practitioners of the Maasai community, especially youth, is not demonstrated;

evidence of free, prior and informed consent was provided from the nine Maasai sections, but only one is identified as a concerned community organization or representative;

4. Decides not to inscribe Enkipaata, Eunoto and Olng’esherr: three male rites of passage of the Maasai community on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding;

5. Recognizes the ongoing efforts made by the State Party to safeguard these rites of passage that constitute a significant part of the social and cultural functioning of the Maasai community and to identify important threats facing the element relating to changes in land tenure systems and climate change;

6. Notes that this nomination follows one submitted in 2011 and withdrawn by the State Party following the unfavourable opinion of the Consultative Body on criteria U.1, U.3 and U.4;

7. Commends the State Party for the improvement in the description of the element and for providing a video as evidence of community consent;

8. Reminds the State Party that inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List does not automatically lead to the granting of financial support from UNESCO;

9. Encourages the State Party to better involve the community to clearly define appropriate safeguarding measures to be taken and its role in this process, including all segments of the community and particularly different age sets, and to ensure their full participation in the nomination process itself.

The Committee

1. Takes note that Mexico has nominated Pilgrimage to Wirikuta (No. 00862) for inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding:

The pilgrimage to Wirikuta is an annual ceremonial ritual undertaken between October and March by pilgrims from the Wixárika Huichol community in western Mexico. The pilgrims follow a route east from the Pacific coast through the San Luis Potosí desert, visiting sites representing the four cardinal directions and leaving ritual offerings. The journey symbolizes and recreates the Wixárika origin myth – a belief that people emerged from the sea and travelled to Wirikuta, where the sun first appeared. The pilgrimage acts as a social mechanism that reproduces an ancestral worldview and an agricultural production system based on corn and the seasonal cycles according to which the pilgrims draw the rains with them on their return. This signals the start of the agricultural season. The pilgrimage – which involves the consumption of peyote from cactuses grown in the desert, ceremonial dances and ritual designs – is an important part of the initiation process for novices training to become traditional healers. In recent decades, the pilgrimage has come under threat from mining projects. The Huichol fear that exploitation of mineral resources and the highly toxic wastes from the mining process could damage sacred sites and natural resources and, with them, their ceremonial practices as a whole.

(20)

U.1: The annual Pilgrimage to Wirikuta connects the Huichol community to its founding myths, thereby providing them a sense of belonging and continuity; the associated worldview and ritual procedures are transmitted from generation to generation through practice and initiation and serve to orient the community’s agricultural work;

U.2: Although the Huichol community undertakes the pilgrimage to Wirikuta each year, the development of agricultural and mining projects as well as their effects on aquifers pose a threat to the viability of the ceremonial practices, particularly because of the risk they pose to the sacred sites themselves;

U.5: The Pilgrimage to Wirikuta was included in 2008 in the Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage, elaborated and maintained by the National Council for Culture and Arts;

U.3: The proposed safeguarding measures do not directly address the risks identified – in particular the mining concessions contrary to existing regulations – nor do they reflect the aspirations of all concerned communities or demonstrate their widest possible participation in their formulation; such measures give little attention to the transmission of the ceremonial practices associated with the Pilgrimage to Wirikuta; their calendar and budget are not clear and the funding sources are not identified;

U.4: While many members of Huichol communities participated in regional workshops that preceded the elaboration of the nomination, information is lacking on how they were actively and effectively involved in the nomination process; the free, prior and informed consent of only one organization is provided; correspondence regarding the nomination indicates that the community is divided with regard to it;

4. Decides not to inscribe Pilgrimage to Wirikuta on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding;

5. Notes with concern that mining and other development projects threaten the sacred sites that are essential for the continuity of the Pilgrimage to Wirikuta;

6. Further notes that inscription of the Pilgrimage on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding cannot substitute for more comprehensive enforcement of existing measures aiming at protecting the sites themselves;

7. Encourages the State Party to mobilize all government levels as well as relevant non- governmental organizations and the Huichol community to develop a safeguarding plan that specifically responds to the threats to the viability of the Pilgrimage to Wirikuta, while proposing a precise timetable, an estimation of the costs and a clear identification of their source;

8. Reminds the State Party that communities are to participate as widely as possible in the process of elaboration of nominations which should reflect the diversity of their expectations and demands.